Can we drop the "ED is not EVE" moaning?

[Noctover]

You got some front talking about assumptions......

Firstly, answer me this then, if the modes are intact how are you going to 'blockade' anything?

Secondly, so you are happy that your owned system is what 1000, 5000, 15000ly from inhabited space? - no, didn't think so.

Thirdly, No, not a solo player, sorry if that doesn't suit you, on guilds, no problem if their functionality doesn't impinge on others but as with your 'blockade' comment you don't want that either.

Fourthly, like it or not, (and I wouldn't have minded a server farm with a subscription to be honest), P2P has massive limitations, what you want fixed isn't going to happen across a P2P infrastructure.

Finally, rocks are not stopping players entering a system, rocks are not power hungry dweebs that require loyalty to mine them and rocks don't wanna shoot folk for the lulz.

You seem to be lacking...something, but lets just iron it out for ya and i can leave you to your dogmatic narrow minded "Anyone who would like deeper more interactive combat oriented game is a power hungry dweeb" mentality.

Firstly, blockades could be optional for people who actually want to participate, then again; i never said FD DO THIS DO THIS i said IF it did it, it could be great.

Secondly, Yes, i think people would be totally fine owning a system out of the way, its hidden location would be part of the defensive strat, it could involve defensive structures, the ability to farm resources from whats available in the system etc, i don't expect you to have the imagination to see that though.

Thirdly, See Firstly.

Fourthly, P2P has its limitations, thanks for clearing that up for me, isnt that exactly WHY i said in my first post that IF FD got rid of it, it could be great? Your comment dosent even make sense.

And Finally, read my original post, then read your original response to my post and ask yourself; do you always get aggressive and tell people to shove their ideas up their *** because you don't agree with them? Might be time for a bit of self-reflection.

 

[wrmiller]

The three online game modes, unlike Offline mode, existed in the Kickstarter pitch from the very beginning - Offline mode was added to the pitch about halfway through (and, sadly, cancelled before release).

That's too bad about the offline mode. I would have much preferred that. I would think that it should have been doable in one form or another, as the old Falcon 4.0 had dynamic campaigns that continued even when you were not flying missions. And your mission success (or failure) actually affected the campaigns. Something like that would have been cool to see here.

 

[Stigbob]

I kinda remember people getting refunds because of these things. Which essential means, that everybody participating in the Kickstarter and is still playing should be fine with what we have now.

Yep, some people were initially refused on the basis they'd individually already logged over a certain number of hours of online play which made their "the very thought of online play disgusts me" claim look a bit like a fib. But due to the waling and gnashing of teeth even they were refunded if they wanted it. Which you'd think would have stopped them constantly moaning about it, yet three years later they still crop up pretty much everywhere ED gets mentioned.

I hope they hang around for the whole 10 year plan, the longer they go the funnier it is.

 

[Harry Hates Golf]

Someone is moaning?

You mean like haunted house moaning, or that "other kind" of moaning....

#1 Fan Girl of Elite: Dangerous​

 

[JeffRyan]

For the record, whilst looking forward to Squadrons and Carriers for the Imperium, I honestly hope the basic setup doesn't change.

I like the robustness that prevents the PI from say... keeping players out of our system or it's hard for us to control too much, we have limits. That's fine in my book. I rule a few star systems and 10 billion people, that's all my ego requires.

 

[Martian Successor]

That's too bad about the offline mode. I would have much preferred that. I would think that it should have been doable in one form or another, as the old Falcon 4.0 had dynamic campaigns that continued even when you were not flying missions. And your mission success (or failure) actually affected the campaigns. Something like that would have been cool to see here.

Offline mode cannot be done because of the BGS. It'd be way too much of a crazy merry go-round to have to store people's BGS transactions when they are offline and then suddenly integrate all their transactions en masse (i.e. one bulk packet) into the whole BGS at whichever time they choose to go online. It would make the BGS choatic and wildly unstable not to mention open to major exploitation via storing up transactions in offline mode ready to dump in bulk at any point in future.

The alternative of cutting off the entire BGS feature while in offline mode is like running and maintaining two seperate versions of the game. Bugs that were fixed in the online version might not even exist in the offline version, which would have its own sets of bugs and vice versa, etc, etc = massive headache. Much simpler to go all in and make it always online since they always intended for ED to be a shared world game, which is what happened.

 

[EUS]

A half baked Idea. And none of it will work until the Solo/Private/Open problems are fixed. ALL PROBLEMS stem from Open Solo and Private. Fix it. Then we will have engaging gameplay.

Until then everything will remain broken. And these new awesome fleet carriers wont mean a thing.

You're funny.
I bought ED because it was a single player game, in your terms, "fixing it" would mean no more open.
Sound good?

 

[JeffRyan]

You're funny.
I bought ED because it was a single player game, in your terms, "fixing it" would mean no more open.
Sound good?

It does seem to me most if not all of the folks who think open, groups and solo are a problem because people don't play in Open to be shot at.

 

[EUS]

It does seem to me most if not all of the folks who think open, groups and solo are a problem because people don't play in Open to be shot at.

It's always the same small qty of people saying the same thing in every thread.

 

[Sunleader]

I am fine with Squadrons and Mobile Bases.
In Fact I do still hope we get Larger Ships in General.

Only Flying Fighters all the time is pretty boring over time.
After all there is only so and so much variations in Combat when every Single Ship is laid out to have Best Firepower 0 Degrees Front.

 

[JeffRyan]

It's always the same small qty of people saying the same thing in every thread.

A couple of years ago the same could be said of me. But usually, I let it go now. The problem will never be resolved. I just hope FDEV never gives in.

 

[Phosphora]

ALL PROBLEMS stem from Open Solo and Private. Fix it. Then we will have engaging gameplay.

I bought Elite when I found out I'd be able to play without meeting other players. For me PvP is dull and boring - I prefer exploring/mining/trading.

We don't need collective standards in the way we vote, the way we dress, the food we eat, the jobs we do, the people we love and marry, the interests we have, or the way we spend our free time. We don't need collective standards in the games we play, or the way we play those games.

Elite works fine for me. See you in solo, or maybe not.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I bought Elite when I found out I'd be able to play without meeting other players. For me PvP is dull and boring - I prefer exploring/mining/trading.

We don't need collective standards in the way we vote, the way we dress, the food we eat, the jobs we do, the people we love and marry, the interests we have, or the way we spend our free time. We don't need collective standards in the games we play, or the way we play those games.

Elite works fine for me. See you in solo, or maybe not.

Cheers, Phos.

Thats the problem. You're in solo. You dont see or take part in the multiplayer experience. If you're in solo for a reason. Then you shouldnt be able to effect everyone else within it. Thats the whole problem here.

 

[AnotherVoice]

Thats the problem. You're in solo. You dont see or take part in the multiplayer experience. If you're in solo for a reason. Then you shouldnt be able to effect everyone else within it. Thats the whole problem here.

I don't really get why you and other people are so worked up about being "affected" by solo players, considering that players group structures and assets are almost non existent in this game.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Thats the problem. You're in solo. You dont see or take part in the multiplayer experience. If you're in solo for a reason. Then you shouldnt be able to effect everyone else within it. Thats the whole problem here.

Nope - not even close.

Its the design of the game. There is no problem.

There are people who want to play with other people. There are people who don't. Both get their wish because of the way the game has been designed and built.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I don't really get why you and other people are so worked up about being "affected" by solo players, considering that players group structures and assets are almost non existent in this game.

Because things like powerplay and player factions dont mean much. People feel griefed when they get shot at. Lots of features dont work because of it. Its not hard to see.

Nope - not even close.

Its the design of the game. There is no problem.

There are people who want to play with other people. There are people who don't. Both get their wish because of the way the game has been designed and built.

Yeah, it is a problem. otherwise hotel california wouldnt exist. And powerplay wouldnt be dead? People feel griefed.

 

[Martian Successor]

It does seem to me most if not all of the folks who think open, groups and solo are a problem because people don't play in Open to be shot at.

You'd be surprised how many people that don't agree with the way the 3 modes are set up, don't fall into that simple of a pigeon-hole. I can only speak for myself, but I don't like the way the 3 modes have equal weight when it comes to the BGS because it makes it unbalanced, in my opinion, in favour of surprise influence shifts/attacks, whether intended or unintended by another player, from Solo/PG. It allows for a toxic play style to just flourish with there being no means of retaliation when one side is completely hidden and thus completely immune. No consequences for one side basically. It pretty much incorporates the worst aspects of the internet, i.e. trolls and toxic types granted immunity from their actions via anonymity.

It's not always about being able to shoot people in the face. In simple terms it's about wanting to see who your potential challenger/opponent is, to see what you're up against and to have a means of communication with them rather than being confused as to why there is suddenly a knife sticking out of your back one day, so to speak, and not even able to ascertain why/how/when.

Just to clarify, I have no issue with there being 3 modes of play in ED. I think it's a good thing to be able to freely choose whenever you want to play with random players, or just your friends or just by yourself depending on your mood or for whatever reason. It's the equal weighting on BGS transactions that I find issue with and I really hope at some point Sandro Sammarco gets back to his idea of giving bonus weighting to players who work the BGS in Open. I just don't see it as being fair that all 3 modes have equal weighting on the BGS when the risk is not equal across the modes. Shutting off players in Solo/PG entirely from the BGS is far too draconian for my liking ergo I find Sandro's idea of bonus weighting while in Open would be a much fairer system than the way things are currently.

 

[Phosphora]

Thats the problem. You're in solo. You dont see or take part in the multiplayer experience. If you're in solo for a reason. Then you shouldnt be able to effect everyone else within it. Thats the whole problem here.

I've campaigned in elections, knocking on doors, writing and posting leaflets, commenting on websites, etc. I'm sure I only had a small effect on the world, but my political opponents couldn't physically attack me - they either had to accept I affected the world or do better than me in the door knocking/leafleting/commenting business. I enjoyed not being physically attacked in the real world, and I enjoy not being attacked in Elite.

Elite has set up a game world where not all actions can be stopped with violence. That's one reason why I bought the game.

Cheers, Phos.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Because things like powerplay and player factions dont mean much. People feel griefed when they get shot at. Lots of features dont work because of it. Its not hard to see.



Yeah, it is a problem. otherwise hotel california wouldnt exist. And powerplay wouldnt be dead? People feel griefed.

Hotel California exists because people like you keep trying to have the game design altered. 'Let it go!' to quote another song.

 

[Martian Successor]

Nope - not even close.

Its the design of the game. There is no problem.

There are people who want to play with other people. There are people who don't. Both get their wish because of the way the game has been designed and built.

Almost true but not quite Ian. We are all playing with others via the BGS, whether we want to or not. There is no "opt out of BGS" mode.